| ▲ | spockz 6 hours ago |
| Why? Passwords can be remembered and entered on other devices for recovery. The plethora of passkeys out there cannot. A bit the same why although I love the keychain in macOS, it also makes me uncomfortable. Lose your phone and laptop in a theft or fire and you are locked out from your Apple account. Goodbye online presence. |
|
| ▲ | AlotOfReading 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The "standard" answer is that you should either use synced passkeys, or enroll multiple passkeys with the provider. The problem is that some providers (e.g. Paypal, some banks) only support one passkey, and synced passkeys aren't supposed to be trusted for attestation (unless they're synced by Apple/Google/Microsoft). |
| |
| ▲ | epaulson 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | And every couple of days we see a post or a tweet about "Google/Apple/Microsoft just nuked my account with no notice and no recourse" so trusting them to sync passkeys rightfully makes some people nervous. | | |
| ▲ | stavros 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Whereas we never see a horror story involving passwords. | | |
| ▲ | AlotOfReading 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | There are two problems with passwords. Reuse, and site breaches. The solution to the former is the same as passkeys: credential managers. Passkeys genuinely solve the second, in exchange for a vastly less comprehensible system (see all the uncertainty people have even here on HN) that doesn't support many of the ways people want to use authentication tokens. | | |
| ▲ | stavros 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, the biggest issue with passwords is phishing. You can't phish a passkey. | | |
| ▲ | AlotOfReading 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Are there any credential managers that don't validate the domain with passwords? Sure, there are issues with PSL subdomain matching, but at the end of the day it's good enough in the real world. All the other stuff (MITM, malicious site, etc) falls under the other case I already mentioned. | | |
| ▲ | stavros 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | There's a big difference between "generally doesn't get phished" and "it's impossible to be phished". | | |
| ▲ | AlotOfReading 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's security, so we're not discussing impossibility. You can still phish a passkey, we're just hoping the cryptography is good enough that it remains astronomically unlikely to succeed. Since we're all reasonable people, that chance is low enough that we're fine accepting it. What I'm saying is that the chance with passwords is still low enough that I'm fine accepting, even though it's much higher than the cryptographic security of passkeys. We're simply disagreeing about where we draw the line of "good enough". | | |
| ▲ | stavros 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | How can you phish a passkey? | | |
| ▲ | AlotOfReading 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | You crack the private key and forge the challenge? Maybe the other IDs sent alongside it are hard to get for some reason, but the security of passkeys comes down to the cryptography. Cryptography can always be broken, but a good cryptosystem makes the probability low enough that any reasonable person considers it good enough. | | |
| ▲ | otterley an hour ago | parent [-] | | If you trust that the cryptography employed in passkeys is effectively unbreakable, then it follows that for all intents and purposes, passkeys cannot be phished. It’s the same thing as trusting that your browsing sessions cannot be MITMed because the end to end encryption is sufficiently strong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | wkat4242 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That's exactly the issue I have with passkeys. All that lockin to big tech. I tried bit warden but most sites with passkeys didn't work with it (like Amazon and PayPal). And on android it only wants to use the Google version (I don't use a Google account on my phone so that's not possible). |
| |
| ▲ | izacus 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | None of what you wrote is true though, is it? Amazon, PayPal work just fine on my 3rd party 1Password extension. And it works just fine on Android as a default passkey provider as well. | | |
| ▲ | wkat4242 an hour ago | parent [-] | | It does not work for me on my Linux PC with Firefox, PayPal simply refuses to enrol passkeys and Amazon tries but then gives an error. I haven't tried chromium as I don't have it installed. I'll give it another try though. The last time was 1 year ago. I don't normally use Bitwarden so I have to set it up from scratch with vaultwarden etc. |
| |
| ▲ | jeroenhd 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Bitwarden works just fine for Amazon. Works on my phone too. Even when supplying passkeys over QR code+Bluetooth to another computer, Bitwarden's Android integration works flawlessly. I do believe you need Android 14 for that, though, so if your phone has been abandoned by its manufacturer/your ROM of choice, it'll break. If Bitwarden is bugged out on your computer/phone for whatever reason, there are also alternatives like 1Password. | | |
| ▲ | wkat4242 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Hm I should try it again, the last time was about a year ago, maybe a little more. I don't normally use bitwarden so I have to set it all up with vaultwarden to make it work. Is it possible now to export the passkey private key though? That was another thing at the time, apparently the fido consortium didn't want keys to be exportable. But I'll try it again, good point. I think with paypal the issue was also that they refuse passkeys in firefox and I don't use chrome so I was stuck there too. With Amazon it tried to enroll me but I got a bunch of errors. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ianburrell 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Passkeys work well with password manager. The password manager also stores the long random password to get in without passkey. The advantage is that passkeys are immune to phishing. Sites also turn off 2FA for passkeys which reduces the hassle. |
| |
| ▲ | coldpie 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Unless the spec authors declare your password manager to be on the official naughty list[1] and relying-parties choose to block clients on that list. [1] https://passkeys.dev/docs/reference/known-issues/ | | |
| ▲ | jeroenhd 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think it's more than fair to document that some implementations lie about their intentional violation of the spec, even if that violation is done to make the login process smoother. Still, I've never seen a website try to block Bitwarden's passkey management (though I've had plenty of issues because of its partial implementation of the API, especially in early versions) despite its spec violations. For some of the implementations, user verification is a massive pain (as browser extensions often only have long and complicated passwords to authenticate) but for KeepassXC a quick and simple fingerprint/facial scan is an option, as it already offers integration into the native OS biometrics anyway. | | |
| ▲ | coldpie 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Still, I've never seen a website try to block Bitwarden's passkey management Ideally it shouldn't be possible, or at least it should clearly be an ugly hack for a website to be doing something like this. Instead the spec authors explicitly endorse blocking clients that they feel are non-compliant. I'm not going to use a login spec that encourages websites to ban me because of the software I choose to use. > for KeepassXC a quick and simple fingerprint/facial scan is an option, as it already offers integration into the native OS biometrics anyway. Man don't get me started on the passkey environment's bizarre obsession with biometrics. My desktop computer doesn't have a fingerprint reader or a camera, and if my OS (Arch Linux) supports that junk I've certainly got no interest in doing the work to set it up just so I can log in to a website. |
| |
| ▲ | yawaramin 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | As I said earlier, this is functionally impossible because Apple devices don't offer device attestation data. | | |
| ▲ | coldpie 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Then I look forward to them removing the anti-feature and no longer maintaining the naughty client list. |
|
|
|
